Menez v. Status Maritime Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jonathan E. Menez, a seafarer, was hired by Status Maritime Corporation for a six-month contract as second engineer on the M/V Naftocement. During his deployment, he experienced symptoms including dizziness, nausea, redness of eyes, purple patches on his skin, bleeding gums, prolonged nosebleeds, and severe urinary and gastrointestinal hemorrhage. These symptoms were allegedly exacerbated by long working hours, being on call 24 hours a day, and being away from his family. Upon his return to the Philippines, his health deteriorated, leading to a diagnosis of acute myelogenous leukemia. He was subsequently hospitalized and passed away on November 11, 2009, approximately two months after his contract ended. Procedural History: Petitioner Amalia S. Menez, on behalf of her deceased husband, filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter seeking death benefits, medical reimbursement, burial expenses, and damages. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the respondents to pay death and burial allowances, and medical expenses. The respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, a petition for certiorari was filed with the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the NLRC's decision, holding that the petitioner failed to prove the work-relatedness of the illness and that the deceased seafarer did not comply with the mandatory post-employment medical examination. The Petition: Petitioner Amalia S. Menez filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. The petitioner argues that the deceased seafarer's death due to acute myelogenous leukemia is compensable as it was work-related and that his death occurred during the term of his employment, as his symptoms manifested during the voyage. The petition also implicitly challenges the CA's findings regarding the failure to comply with post-employment medical examination requirements. The core issue presented to the Supreme Court is whether Jonathan's death is compensable under the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).
Issue(s)
Whether Jonathan's death due to acute myelogenous leukemia is compensable under the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), considering compliance with procedural requirements and work-relatedness. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the National Labor Relations Commission's dismissal of the complaint for death benefits, considering the timing of death relative to the employment contract.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated April 29, 2016, and Resolution dated October 3, 2016, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 119694 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the compensability of Jonathan's death and the procedural requirements, and the work-relatedness of the illness: The Court reiterated that factual issues are generally not reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The factual findings of the NLRC, when confirmed by the CA, are conclusive. The Court found that the CA correctly affirmed the NLRC's findings that petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of appearing before a company-designated doctor. Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC mandates that a seafarer must submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon return, unless physically incapacitated, in which case a written notice is required. Failure to comply results in forfeiture of the right to claim benefits. The petitioner failed to provide a valid reason for Jonathan's non-compliance with this mandatory reporting requirement. The Court emphasized that ignoring this rule would set a negative precedent and be unfair to employers, making it difficult to determine the cause of illness due to the passage of time. Even if the failure to comply with the reporting requirement were excused, the petitioner still failed to prove that Jonathan's death was work-related and compensable. To be entitled to death compensation, it must be proven that the death is work-related and occurred during the term of the contract. The petitioner failed to establish a causal connection between Jonathan's death and the nature of his work by substantial evidence. The Court noted that no complaint, medical report, or relevant document was presented regarding any illness contracted by Jonathan while on board the vessel. Without such records, it is difficult to conclude that he acquired acute myelogenous leukemia during his employment. The Labor Arbiter's conclusion that the illness was work-related simply because Jonathan passed the PEME and was diagnosed with leukemia shortly after repatriation was deemed a non-sequitur and lacked factual basis. On the Court of Appeals' alleged error and the timing of death relative to the employment contract: The Court further pointed out that Jonathan's death occurred two months after the expiration of his contract. The rule requires that death should occur during the effectivity of the employment contract, with the exception of medical repatriation. In this case, Jonathan was repatriated due to the completion of his contract, not for medical reasons, thus this exception does not apply. The claim for death benefits was therefore correctly dismissed.
Main Doctrine
A seafarer's failure to submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days of return, without a valid justification, results in the forfeiture of the right to claim death benefits. Furthermore, the claimant must prove by substantial evidence the work-relatedness of the illness and that it occurred during the term of employment.